Property Tax Assessment

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.

The appellant had previously settled appeals for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years, resulting in a Board decision establishing the current value as of January 1, 2016.

The Board found that the preconditions for issue estoppel were met, as the same question (value as of January 1, 2016) was decided in a final decision involving the same parties.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the application of issue estoppel, finding no real injustice to the appellant, and dismissed the appeals.

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its appeals of omitted assessments made under s. 33 of the Assessment Act for the 2018 to 2020 taxation years.

The City of Kitchener opposed the withdrawal, arguing it had provided notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City had provided valid notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment, precluding the Appellant from withdrawing the appeals as of right under Rule 27.

The Board also denied the Appellant leave to withdraw under Rule 29, finding that the City had put forward a reasonable case for a higher assessment and would be prejudiced if denied a hearing after participating fully in the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the 2023 and 2024 property assessments of their residential property, arguing the value should be reduced due to nuisances caused by abutting commercial properties.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to quantify the nuisance impact and relied on the respondent's comparable sales data to determine a current value of $1,140,000.

The Board then applied an equity reduction based on the median assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties, resulting in a final equitable assessment of $1,060,000, which increased the original assessment.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, alleging a palpable error in the assessment roll regarding the residential unit count.

The Board found that the assessment corporation's overstatement of the unit count was a factual error of conspicuous magnitude.

As the motion was unopposed and there was no evidence of prejudice, the Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for bringing the appeals and directed the assessment corporation to be the appellant.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-storey, slab-on-grade dwelling, arguing the returned value of $866,000 was too high compared to dwellings with basements.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $883,000 using a bracketing method based on comparable sales.

The Board found no evidence to support an equity reduction.

As the determined value was close to the returned value and MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $866,000.

The appellants sought property tax relief for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) and s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that demolition and renovations prevented the use of their property as a warehouse.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the 2021 appeal, finding that the demolition and renovations did not occur during the 2021 taxation year or the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll, which is a statutory requirement for relief.

For the 2022 taxation year, the Board found the property eligible for relief under s. 357(1)(g) but upheld the Town's calculation of the tax refund using the cost to cure approach, dismissing the appeal to vary the quantum.

The appellant property owner appealed the City's denial of its application for municipal tax relief for the 2021 taxation year under s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appellant argued that renovations prevented the normal use of its hotel property for the entire year.

While the Assessment Review Board found that renovations did prevent normal use for at least three months, it dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence, such as invoices, tax bills, or proof of taxes paid, to substantiate the requested refund amount.

The applicant, Langs Community Development Corporation (LCDC), sought a declaration that its property was exempt from municipal property tax under s. 3(1)(12)iii of the Assessment Act, arguing it was a charitable, non-profit corporation organized for the relief of the poor and supported by public funds.

The respondents opposed, arguing LCDC did not meet the statutory requirements.

The court found that LCDC shared an identity in patrimony with Langs Farm Village Association (Langs), was supported in part by public funds (through a significant grant from the City of Cambridge), and was organized for the relief of the poor, both independently and by virtue of its shared identity with Langs.

The application for tax exemption was granted.

The Applicant applied to the City of Toronto for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2022 property taxes due to extreme poverty or sickness.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Applicant had $1,695.56 available after reasonable living expenses, which should have been applied to her $2,243.36 tax bill.

The Board determined the Applicant was unable to pay the remaining $547.80 due to extreme poverty caused by COVID-19 business disruptions, and reduced her 2022 property taxes by that amount.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for an industrial property operating as an automotive recycling business for the 2020-2023 taxation years, seeking a reduction in the current value assessment.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) responded, arguing for an increase in the assessed value based on the cost approach and a change in classification to entirely commercial.

The Assessment Review Board found that a hydro corridor on the property did not negatively impact its value and accepted MPAC's expert evidence on land value.

The Board ordered the assessed value increased from $723,000 to $1,126,000, confirmed the supplementary assessment of $118,000, denied any equitable adjustment, and changed the property classification to Commercial.

The requesting parties sought an order for MPAC to disclose documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal, pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

Notice was served on the third-party property owners, and while four objected, only one provided submissions, which the Board found did not justify withholding disclosure.

The Board granted the request and ordered MPAC to disclose the requested documents.

The appellants requested an order for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose sales investigation sheets for 14 properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and none objected.

The Board found the requested documents relevant and proportionate to the issues in dispute.

The Board granted the request and ordered MPAC to disclose the documents subject to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The requesting party sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to disclose documents relating to properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no parties to the appeal opposed the request.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request and ordered the disclosure of the requested documents within 20 days.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which held it was estopped from raising the issue of the current value of its office building for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

The parties had previously signed minutes of settlement agreeing to the current value assessment as of January 1, 2016, for the 2016-2020 cycle.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the provincial government extended the 2016 valuation date to apply to subsequent taxation years.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the issue of the 2016 current value had been finally determined by the settlement and that the Board correctly applied the doctrine of issue estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion to permit the late filing of two witness statements past the deadline in the Schedule of Events for its property assessment appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found no exceptional circumstances to alter the Schedule of Events under Rule 40, as the respondent had previously challenged the validity of the 2021 sale in its pleadings.

However, applying Rule 7 regarding non-compliance, the Board permitted the late filing and testimony of the proposed factual witnesses, finding no prejudice to the respondent since a hearing had not yet been scheduled.

The respondent was granted an opportunity to amend its pleadings and expert report in response.

The appellants applied to the Township of Uxbridge to cancel, reduce, or refund property taxes for the years 2019 through 2022, arguing their commercial building was damaged by a municipal drainage project.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applications for 2019, 2020, and 2021 were filed past the statutory deadline and dismissed them.

For the 2022 taxation year, the Board found the application was timely and that the damage rendered 50% of the building substantially unusable.

The Board ordered the cancellation of 50% of the taxes levied on the property for 2022.

The appellants appealed the assessment of their property to the Assessment Review Board, requesting that a portion be determined as conservation land under the Conservation Lands Tax Incentive Program.

The matter was referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that 145.74 acres of the property qualified as conservation land.

Furthermore, the Tribunal granted an extension of time for the appellants to file their 2022 application, finding that mitigating circumstances existed due to miscommunication and confusion regarding the application process.

Following an interim decision regarding the assessment of two properties in Brampton, the parties conferred and reached an agreement on the current values and apportionments for the taxation years under appeal.

The Assessment Review Board ordered that the current values and apportionments be revised in accordance with the parties' agreement, as set out in the attached schedules.

The appellant appealed the 2023 current value assessment of their residential property, which MPAC had increased to $532,000 following a 2022 sale.

The Board found the correct current value to be $515,000 based on the time-adjusted 2016 sale price, rejecting MPAC's addition for an unproven renovation.

Applying section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board further reduced the assessment to $437,000 to achieve equity with similar properties in the vicinity, preferring the appellant's comparison of six highly similar neighbouring properties over MPAC's broader equity study.

The appellant developer constructed three apartment towers and subsequently registered a condominium plan converting two towers into 330 condominium units.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) issued an omitted assessment for the original property, and later issued 331 omitted assessments for the newly created condo units and the remaining multi-residential tower.

The appellant appealed to the Assessment Review Board, arguing MPAC lacked authority under s. 33(1) of the Assessment Act because the physical land had already been assessed.

The Board upheld the assessments, finding the condominium registration created new legal parcels of land.

The Divisional Court dismissed the developer's appeal, holding that the Board correctly interpreted 'land' and did not breach procedural fairness.